Btw, guys, here is a link showing a group of intelligent people discussing the afterlife notion. I think if we all watch this we can really get our own discourse going. It's called "Is There An Afterlife?":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbzd6ZbCowY

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

I think on of the key ideas for discussing this is to first discuss what it is to be a person, whether a person is purely physical or is also non physical, and the next step is to clearly discuss the difference between physical and non physical. Atm im about to head out but il post more later.

Starting from that point then.. I think a person is also non physical. ONE reason I think that is cause I can feel at times when someone is working on my chakras and aura extending outside of my physical body. This isnt just like a placebo as Ive had people work on my energy system from another country working on me distantly and I hadnt been told the time they were going to do so and I could feel exactly when they started doing it. (this has happened quite a few different occassions so not a fluke).

Another example of why I think we can be non physical. I once went to a demo of trance channelling.. amazing demo the ladies face actually shifted to a mans face of a different race then what she was when the spirit entered... and when the spirit said goodbye to us and her head flopped back down on her check. I saw the spirit come out of her body from her head like a wift of smoke.

Ive had many different experiences which have made me completely believe (no doubt) that we can be non physical.

Any experience can be created in the brain, taniaa. Subjectivity cannot be relied upon as firm back-up for what you believe to be the case. Otherwise we'd all be using our lucid dreams as proof that spirit realms exist and the mentally ill would have to be given credence for their delusions or beliefs that their hallucinations are real extensions of reality that nobody else can see.

Just because you subjectively experience chakras does not mean that they are really there and if you used this as proof in front of someone like James Randi, Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss you'd be laughed at and quickly refuted.

I can come up with hypothetical conceptions of my own for more feasible versions of an afterlife (to revisit this subject). One would be a perceived and illusory “afterlife”, the experience that could precede the annihilation of self at the point of absolute and certain death. This pre-death experience could be similar to the NDE, and, as the dying individual acquires a distorted sense of time, seconds under such mental conditions could seem like eternities. If the type of dying process warrants phase states of the mind that give rise to OOBEs and lucid dreaming, then the dying individual could consciously experience something that would make him or her believe that the afterlife is real and imminent after all.

At this stage, the survival instinct, alongside emotional brain misfiring, could deviate reasoning from the experience’s wholly immanent nature. The dying person, in this sense, would enjoy a pseudo-afterlife before being ushered out into permanent unconsciousness.

Another type of afterlife which could be more feasible than the spiritualist or religious one would be the revival of the individual awareness as mentioned earlier, such as rebirth, but not in the sense of reincarnation by a spiritual being. What I propound is one being brought back into being if the universe happens to reproduce the energetic configuration that identifies with said individual awareness and sense of self. But even this seems improbable and refutable to me. Evolution does not seem compatible with retrograde mutations. We are not going to degenerate into Neanderthals.

The humans of tomorrow will always be different - in fact this recalls what Sir Martin Rees, a professor of cosmology and astrophysics, once said:

“I’d like to widen people’s awareness of the tremendous time span lying ahead - for our planet, and for life itself. Most educated people are aware that we’re the outcome of nearly 4 billion years of Darwinian selection, but many tend to think that humans are somehow the culmination. Our sun, however, is less than halfway through its lifespan. It will not be humans who watch the sun’s demise, 6 billion years from now. Any creatures that then exist will be as different from us as we are from bacteria or amoebae.”

What biologically makes us human now is gradually being transformed and at some point in the future we’ll be no more. Unless, of course, a scenario like the one in the film “AI: Artificial Intelligence” presents itself and we are brought back by highly advanced and seemingly conscious machines interested or seeking information on human history and genetics (as mentioned in the other thread). If this takes place before the Earth’s destruction or our solar system’s demise then maybe there is a slim chance of a conscious return. But highly unlikely.

And would we really make a conscious comeback in the AI scenario or would the machines just be replicating what once was (not the original form of consciousness)? New Agers have suggested a return in another universe. This does not seem viable to me. We are part of this universe and our being is thus compatible with its energy levels and constants. Many flock to the pseudoscientific notions of individuals who profess superior expertise such as Thomas Campbell (author of the “My Big TOE” trilogy). Campbell deems the basis of reality to be digital consciousness, his way of filling in the gaps that what he calls “mainstream” and therefore “little picture” science (legitimate science in my book) has not managed to cover.

This post-New Ager, like many others, found hoof prints on the ground made by horses that died and never fossilised and expects everyone to be open-minded about the idea that unicorns made them (apologies for the reusage of this silly analogy but the likelihoods of this is what we are dealing with here). When it comes to quantum theory beware of pseudo-scientists out there. Take heed of real experts, especially those who worked on major projects like the CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) ones.

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

As soon as AFTERLIFE is mentioned it gets 84 views and 12 replies in a single day! It's always a hot topic, eh?

I'll read the other replies after I state my own thought....

What was life like before you were ever born? It is logical to assume that afterlife is the same as before life. Although nothingness can be mind boggling and fear of the unknown is human nature, ask yourself this: Did you have any worries before you were born?

lucidinthe sky wrote:I'm going to suggest a new category called "Dream Science" or something like that so we can have purely scientifc discussions there

That is an excellent idea. Only the science aspect and nothing more. Gadgets, gizmos, brain function, bodily chemicals, perhaps even a little psychiatry. It would be like the counter part of the 'paranormal' section. Reading Rebecca's articles, I find she tends to be very scientific as well. Count me in for being part of a petition for that.

Summerlander wrote:Any experience can be created in the brain, taniaa. Subjectivity cannot be relied upon as firm back-up for what you believe to be the case. Otherwise we'd all be using our lucid dreams as proof that spirit realms exist and the mentally ill would have to be given credence for their delusions or beliefs that their hallucinations are real extensions of reality that nobody else can see.

Just because you subjectively experience chakras does not mean that they are really there and if you used this as proof in front of someone like James Randi, Richard Dawkins or Lawrence Krauss you'd be laughed at and quickly refuted.

I personally dont believe lucid dreams are a real world thou I experience that but rather a mental construct.

I have a question for you.. at what point do you believe something witnessed by people (say they are all seeing or feeling the same thing), goes from being subjective to objective?

When I was doing healing in a group of 3 healers.. with paying clients at a stall we were running at the Adelaide Mind,body, spirit psychic expo years ago.. we found that one of us could go off to the loo and come back and be able to quickly scan the person being worked on and then pitch straight into it again without having to ask the others what had been done and what hadnt yet.. anyone watching us would of thought we had silent communication of some kind going on as we worked as one even if we had been absent for a while or just arrived at the expo. (actually Im surprised due to this that a study hasnt been set up with a group of healers to prove they can tell what has been done and what hasnt been done to someones energy system if one of them leaves the room for a while.. if one pulled them aside they'd all say the same thing due to what they experience with doing a rescan.

Actually, I'm going to suggest a new category called "Dream Science" or something like that so we can have purely scientifc discussions there. There is a lot of interesting research that has already been done and much we can all learn. If anyone reading is interested in the idea, let the forum owners know.

In Fatima, Portugal (where I'm from), many claimed to have witnessed the sun dancing in the sky - strange that such a miraculous event of astronomical proportions was not witnessed anywhere else on the planet...

There have been quite a few healers investigated and were found to be frauds. Religious fervour can also release adrenaline in their bodies and kill the pain.

Finally, you can only be sure of what you experience and nobody else. They will show you what you want to see and you will see in them what you wish which confirms your beliefs and preconceptions.

Derren Brown made a woman believe he had a system for always betting on winning horses. He'd tell her the horse, she'd bet and always win. What she didnt know is that he had done the same to several people who had lost and she just happened to be at the top of the pyramid of people that had been tested without losing one bet.

There was no magic or precognition. From her perspective it seemed that way. But it was all a big illusion.

[ Post made via Android ]

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."